Court lifts YouTube ban on controversial film Innocence of Muslims.  FFA supporters sent close to 25,000 emails to each appellate court judge urging this decision.

Reuters reports:

Google Inc should not have to remove an anti-Islamic film from its YouTube website because a woman complained that she was duped into performing in the film that depicted the Prophet Mohammed as a pedophile, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Monday.

In a case widely followed for its potential impact on the entertainment industry, an 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said an injunction prohibiting Google from broadcasting the film should be lifted.

A three-judge panel had ordered Google to remove the controversial film "Innocence of Muslims." Billed as a trailer, it triggered anti-American sentiment among Muslims in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere in 2012. 

Florida Family Association sent out seven email alerts since March 12, 2014 that asked subscribers to send emails to all forty three justices at the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals urging them to reverse their 3 judge panel that ordered Google to remove the video Innocence of Muslims from Youtube.com.  These email alerts are posted here and here and here at Floridafamily.org.  The history of this issue is summarized that the bottom of this article.

“Innocence of Muslims” which sparked protests across the Muslim world “depicts Muhammad as a feckless philanderer who approved of child sexual abuse, among other overtly insulting claims that have caused outrage.   In a 13 minute 51 second trailer, the Islamic prophet is made to look like a murderer and adulterer as well” according to TheBlaze.com

24,653 people sent emails to each of the 43 justices (1,060,079 total emails) through Floridafamily.org which stated:

Subject line:  Please affirm district court order in Cindy Lee Garcia vs. Google 12-57302

Email content:

Honorable Judge,

I respectfully urge you to affirm the district court’s order in Cindy Lee Garcia vs. Google 12-57302. 

Please avoid making the errors written in Chief Judge Kozinski’s opinion.  Instead of guaranteeing the free speech rights of Americans Judge Kozinski’s opinion empowered people who threaten violence.  His opinion which references the fatwa against Garcia essentially elevates the Sharia law command to censor blasphemy of Muhammad over the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Additionally, Chief Judge Kozinski’s opinion prejudicially determines who serious producers are and who are not and elevates the copyrights of “aspiring actresses” over first time producers.

Judge Alex Kozinski’s order in Garcia vs Google appears to be more concerned with appeasing an offended group of violent radicals than it does with affirming the First Amendment and establishing equity.   

Please sustain the First Amendment rights that all Americans cherish by affirming the district court’s order.

Thank you.

MAY 18, 2015 THE 9th US CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE 3 JUDGE PANEL, AFFIRMED DISTRICT COURT, AND ALLOWED GOOGLE TO SHOW FILM.

The first line of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruling states:

The en banc court affirmed the district court’s denial of Cindy Lee Garcia’s motion for a preliminary injunction requiring Google, Inc., to remove the film Innocence of Muslims from all of its platforms, including YouTube.  Click here to read the appellate court's entire ruling.

A special thanks to everyone who sent emails. Your support made a difference. 

History of Garcia vs. Google.

FEBRUARY 26, 2014:   3 JUDGE PANEL ORDERED YOUTUBE TO REMOVE FILM INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS

A three judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Google on February 26, 2014 to remove the controversial movie “Innocence of Muslims” from Youtube.com.  The panel voted 2-1 to reverse a lower court order that denied the injunction sought in Cindy Lee Garcia's law suit.  Garcia sued Google on October 17, 2012 seeking a restraining order that would require Youtube.com to remove “Innocence of Muslims”  from their web service.  Garcia claimed that she had a copyright for a five second video that was incorporated into the film and that she had not given permission for its use in the movie.  She also claimed that she would suffer irreparable harm from an Islamic fatwa if the movie were not removed from access on the World Wide Web.

The 9th US Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote the opinion for the (2 to 1) panel ruling which stated in part:

• While answering a casting call for a low-budget amateur film doesn’t often lead to stardom, it also rarely turns an aspiring actress into the subject of a fatwa. But that’s exactly what happened to Cindy Lee Garcia when she agreed to act in a film with the working title “Desert Warrior.” 
  
• These, of course, are fighting words to many faithful Muslims and, after the film aired on Egyptian television, there were protests that generated worldwide news coverage.  An Egyptian cleric issued a fatwa, calling for the killing of everyone involved with the film, and Garcia soon began receiving death threats. She responded by taking a number of security precautions and asking that Google remove the video from YouTube.
  
• There’s nothing in the record to suggest that Youssef was in the “regular business” of making films. Reid, 490 U.S. at 752. He’d held many jobs, but there’s no indication he ever worked in the film industry.  And there’s no evidence he had any union contracts, relationships with prop houses or other film suppliers, leases of studio space or distribution agreements.  The dissent would hold that Youssef was in the “regular business” of filmmaking simply because he made “Innocence of Muslims.” But if shooting a single amateur film amounts to the regular business of filmmaking, every schmuck with a video camera becomes a movie mogul.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski’s opinion which references the fatwa against Garcia essentially elevates the Sharia law command to censor blasphemy of Muhammad over the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  This lawsuit would never have happened were it not for the fatwa issued by the Egyptian Imam that ordered the killing of anyone involved in the production of “Innocence of Muslims.”  Garcia did not take legal action until six months after the video was released.  The fatwa is the potential “irreparable harm,” one of four factors required for a restraining order, sited in the appellate court’s opinion for the basis of ordering Google to remove “Innocence of Muslims” from YouTube.  Any restraining order should be focused on the Islamists who want to kill Americans not on Americans who want to exercise their First Amendment Rights.

Additionally, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski’s opinion prejudicially determines who serious producers are and who are not and elevates the copyrights of “aspiring actresses” over first time producers.  Judge Kozinski’s opinion erroneously discounts the fact that Youseff, the film’s producer paid Garcia, the actress, $500 for her video footage at issue.  Judge Kozinski’s opinion prejudicially establishes that copyrights for amateurs and professionals are different when the court should be establishing equity. 

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski’s opinion could empower Islamists to focus their angst against more actors in videos and perhaps people in photos with the goal of influencing them to demand removal of the same from movies, website posts or blog posts.  The Council on American Islamic Relations' censorship of American films has been robust lately.  CAIR recently boasted:  CAIR has challenged actual and potential anti-Muslim stereotypes in productions such as ABC Family network's "Alice in Arabia," "Executive Decision," "24," "The Siege," "True Lies," "Rules of Engagement," "Obsession," "The Third Jihad," "Jihad in America," and "The Sum of All Fears."

MARCH 12, 2014: GOOGLE APPEALED AND FLORIDA FAMILY ASSOCIATION LAUNCHED ONLINE CAMPAIGN:

•    Defendant Google, who owns YouTube, petitioned the appellate court to hear the case en banc by a larger panel of the circuit's justices in the 9^th US Circuit.
•    Florida Family Association launched the first of seven email alerts that asked subscribers to send emails that urged the 43 appellate court judges to reverse the three judge panel ruling and affirm the district court’s ruling.

NOVEMBER 12, 2014 COURT GRANTED EN BANC HEARING:

The majority of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals voted on November 12, 2014 to order the en banc rehearing of this case.  Justice Thomas of the 9th US Circuit Court issued the following order on November 12, 2014 regarding a three judge panel ruling (2 to 1) that ordered Google to remove the video Innocence of Muslims from Youtube.com:

Page 2 THOMAS, Circuit Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3.

The three -judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

Judges Wardlaw, Owens and Friedland did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.

MAY 18, 2015 THE 9TH US CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE 3 JUDGE PANEL, AFFIRMED DISTRICT COURT, ALLOWED GOOGLE TO SHOW FILM:

The first line of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruling states:

The en banc court affirmed the district court’s denial of Cindy Lee Garcia’s motion for a preliminary injunction requiring Google, Inc., to remove the film Innocence of Muslims from all of its platforms, including YouTube.  Click here to read the appellate court's entire ruling.

A special thanks to everyone who sent emails. Your support made a difference.

Florida Family Association is committed to providing email forums at Floridafamily.org for the public to express their concerns to the appropriate justices regarding Islamist's demands in American courts that would advance Sharia in the United States.   If you would like to support Florida Family Association with a tax deductible, confidential gift please click here or mail your donation to PO Box 46547, Tampa, FL 33646-0105.